Displaying 20 results from an estimated 200 matches similar to: "[LLVMdev] a very strange question about adding new instrinsic."
2008 Aug 22
0
[LLVMdev] Implementing llvm.memory.barrier on PowerPC
OK, I've checked it in for you, thanks. Please do contact Chris
about write access.
On Aug 22, 2008, at 12:38 AMPDT, Gary Benson wrote:
> No, I don't.
>
> Cheers,
> Gary
>
> Dale Johannesen wrote:
>> This looks OK to check in, do you have write access?
>>
>> On Aug 21, 2008, at 6:38 AMPDT, Gary Benson wrote:
>>
>>> Dale Johannesen
2008 Aug 21
2
[LLVMdev] Implementing llvm.memory.barrier on PowerPC
Dale Johannesen wrote:
> On Aug 19, 2008, at 7:18 AMPDT, Gary Benson wrote:
> > I'm trying to implement llvm.memory.barrier on PowerPC. I've
> > modelled my patch (attached) on the implementation in X86, but
> > when I try and compile my test file (also attached) with llc I
> > get the error "Cannot yet select: 0x10fa4ad0: ch = MemBarrier
> >
2008 Aug 22
3
[LLVMdev] Implementing llvm.memory.barrier on PowerPC
No, I don't.
Cheers,
Gary
Dale Johannesen wrote:
> This looks OK to check in, do you have write access?
>
> On Aug 21, 2008, at 6:38 AMPDT, Gary Benson wrote:
>
> >Dale Johannesen wrote:
> >>On Aug 19, 2008, at 7:18 AMPDT, Gary Benson wrote:
> >>>I'm trying to implement llvm.memory.barrier on PowerPC. I've
> >>>modelled my patch
2008 Aug 19
2
[LLVMdev] Implementing llvm.memory.barrier on PowerPC
Hi all,
I'm trying to implement llvm.memory.barrier on PowerPC. I've modelled
my patch (attached) on the implementation in X86, but when I try and
compile my test file (also attached) with llc I get the error "Cannot
yet select: 0x10fa4ad0: ch = MemBarrier 0x10fa4828, 0x10fa4c68,
0x10fa4be0, 0x10fa4be0, 0x10fa4be0, 0x10fa4be0". This presumably
means my "membarrier"
2012 May 12
0
[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] Odd PPC inline asm constraint
On Tue, 01 May 2012 21:25:29 -0500
Peter Bergner <bergner at vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-05-01 at 19:58 -0500, Peter Bergner wrote:
> > On Tue, 2012-05-01 at 17:47 -0500, Hal Finkel wrote:
> > > By default it should build for
> > > whatever the current host is (no special flags required). To
> > > specifically build for something else, use:
2012 May 02
4
[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] Odd PPC inline asm constraint
On Tue, 2012-05-01 at 19:58 -0500, Peter Bergner wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-05-01 at 17:47 -0500, Hal Finkel wrote:
> > By default it should build for
> > whatever the current host is (no special flags required). To
> > specifically build for something else, use:
> > -ccc-host-triple powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu
> > or
> > -ccc-host-triple
2007 Jan 12
2
[LLVMdev] Inserting an assembly instruction in the calling sequence of the powerpc target
Hi all,
I'm currently implementing a linux/ppc target in llvm. The abis between
Darwin/ppc and
linux/ppc are different and I'm running into problems with vararg calls.
Before a variadic method is called, an extra instruction must be
executed (which is creqv 6, 6, 6). This
instruction is not necessary in Darwin/ppc.
I looked into the PowerPC target implementation and the code generation
2007 Jan 14
0
[LLVMdev] Inserting an assembly instruction in the calling sequence of the powerpc target
On Fri, 12 Jan 2007, Nicolas Geoffray wrote:
> I'm currently implementing a linux/ppc target in llvm. The abis between
cool
> Darwin/ppc and linux/ppc are different and I'm running into problems
> with vararg calls.
ok
> Before a variadic method is called, an extra instruction must be
> executed (which is creqv 6, 6, 6). This instruction is not necessary in
>
2007 Feb 17
2
[LLVMdev] Linux/ppc backend
Evan Cheng wrote:
> I think the easiest thing for you to do is to define a separate CALL
> instruction with a different set of Defs. This instruction should
> only be selected when the predicate isMacho is true. Also update
> PPCRegisterInfo.cpp getCalleeSavedRegs() to return a different list
> when subtarget->isMachoABI() is true.
>
Alright, thx Evan, that's
2004 May 09
0
[LLVMdev] Testing LLVM on OS X
On Tue, 4 May 2004, Chris Lattner wrote:
> On Tue, 4 May 2004, Chris Lattner wrote:
> > I suspect that a large reason that LLVM does worst than a native C
> > compiler with the CBE+GCC is that LLVM generates very low-level C code,
> > and I'm not convinced that GCC is doing a very good job (ie, without
> > syntactic loops).
>
> Yup, this is EXACTLY what is
2002 Aug 05
1
{long} smbd maxes CPU when returning user details and loops...
Hello all,
I've been using Samba for a few years now and have finally come across
a
problem that I can't seem to sort out myself so I thought I'd use your
intelligence
instead... Heres the situation.
I've got a Linux box (2.4.17) acting as a PDC for some
dual boot
Linux/NT boxen. Currently users have a single home directory (over NIS
to
Linux and Samba to Windows) with separate
2008 Aug 21
0
[LLVMdev] Implementing llvm.memory.barrier on PowerPC
On Aug 19, 2008, at 7:18 AMPDT, Gary Benson wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm trying to implement llvm.memory.barrier on PowerPC. I've modelled
> my patch (attached) on the implementation in X86, but when I try and
> compile my test file (also attached) with llc I get the error "Cannot
> yet select: 0x10fa4ad0: ch = MemBarrier 0x10fa4828, 0x10fa4c68,
> 0x10fa4be0,
2007 Feb 02
0
[LLVMdev] Linux/ppc backend
Nicolas,
Would you point me to the Linux/PPC ABI documents you are using so I
can better judge what your restrictions are? These changes also have
an effect on debugging and exception handling.
Cheers,
-- Jim
On 2-Feb-07, at 08:58 AM, Nicolas Geoffray wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I have almost completed the implementation of a linux/ppc backend
> in llvm. There were a few
2008 Aug 21
0
[LLVMdev] Implementing llvm.memory.barrier on PowerPC
This looks OK to check in, do you have write access?
On Aug 21, 2008, at 6:38 AMPDT, Gary Benson wrote:
> Dale Johannesen wrote:
>> On Aug 19, 2008, at 7:18 AMPDT, Gary Benson wrote:
>>> I'm trying to implement llvm.memory.barrier on PowerPC. I've
>>> modelled my patch (attached) on the implementation in X86, but
>>> when I try and compile my test
2007 Feb 12
1
[LLVMdev] Linux/ppc backend
Hi Jim,
I didn't use any documents, but intensively looked at gcc's output. I
think this document:
http://refspecs.freestandards.org/elf/elfspec_ppc.pdf
is the last specification of the ABI.
Cheers,
Nicolas
Jim Laskey wrote:
> Nicolas,
>
> Would you point me to the Linux/PPC ABI documents you are using so I
> can better judge what your restrictions are? These changes
2007 Feb 02
5
[LLVMdev] Linux/ppc backend
Hi everyone,
I have almost completed the implementation of a linux/ppc backend in
llvm. There were a few things to modify in
lib/Target/PowerPC with a lot of "if (!isDarwin)".
There are some places where I need help before saying the port is
complete. I attached the diff file as a reference
1) In order to generate a creqv instruction before a vararg call, I
created a new
2007 Feb 02
0
[LLVMdev] Linux/ppc backend
On Fri, 2 Feb 2007, Nicolas Geoffray wrote:
> I have almost completed the implementation of a linux/ppc backend in llvm.
Cool!
> There were a few things to modify in
> lib/Target/PowerPC with a lot of "if (!isDarwin)".
Some meta comments:
1. Please don't change PPC -> llvmPPC. I assume that you did this because
PPC is a #define in some system header. Please
2007 Feb 06
1
[LLVMdev] automatically generating intrinsic declarations
On Mon, Feb 05, 2007 at 12:28:56PM -0800, Chris Lattner wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Feb 2007, Dan Gohman wrote:
>
> > LLVM knows what all the types of the intrinsic functions are; I thought,
> > why are users (including llvm-gcc...) required to duplicate all this
> > information in order to use them? I mean in order to call
> > getOrInsertFunction to get declarations for
2009 May 09
1
[LLVMdev] Codegen error with instrinsic
I am getting the following error when i am trying to generate the
code. In the optimization pass I have inserted some calls
llvm.annotation.i32 class to provide indentification tags to loops to
be used in subsequent passes.
Codegen is complaining about these annotations.
llc -march=c ham1_seq.bc3
Error: Code generator does not support intrinsic function 'llvm.annotation.i32'!
llc
2012 May 02
0
[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] Odd PPC inline asm constraint
On Tue, 2012-05-01 at 17:47 -0500, Hal Finkel wrote:
> By default it should build for
> whatever the current host is (no special flags required). To
> specifically build for something else, use:
> -ccc-host-triple powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu
> or
> -ccc-host-triple powerpc-unknown-linux-gnu
So LLVM isn't biarch capable? Meaning one LLVM compiler cannot
generate both